Part Three is the Charm

[mryy]

Translations. The point I wanted to make was that in Nature you see organisms of different origins mutually dependent on one another for survial, for growth. Rhetorically asking, is it possible for this relationship to have an equivalent in mechanical energy systems?

Wagner you silly ... ... lol (Btw Wagner is cool in my book and a big thank you to him that my concept came into being. :) )

Like the two friends , one could pay the missing fee for the other leaving him unable to pay for himself , but since both are chained together , they cant go in to see the movie.

There would have to be energy that cover both systems , easy to cover one's energy with the other like with lets say a spring or a falling weight like clockwork , however those wind down on energy for a set period , bad example but it comes down to depletion of energy for one , so theres no surplus energy to reset it again.

perhaps you find something special , i just doubt its there in that design .

I forgot to add the gain in angular momentum (AM) experienced by my unbalanced wheel when it is released. B.'s one-directionals also had an initial state of overbalance. And the gain in AM is not conserved according to physics. Could B. have used of this net increase to produce PM?

[WaltzCee]

Do you have any projections of electricity demands as the world shifts from hydro-carbon use to alternative energy sources.

What might be the life cycle of a plausible RoI (return on investment) for an investment in a GPGD wheel?

5 minutes? a whole year? I'd need an accountant to put it in Excel. I'm no Einstein after all.

We should probably stop derailing MrYY's thread.

[Leafy]

Maybe I misunderstood your original post? See upload for clarification. I use an unbalanced, weighted lever which is a wheel in its simplest form. There is torque on both sides that wants to rotate the lever in either direction. We shall call the greater torque on the right side the forward torque as it produces the desired spin direction. The other side is hence the back torque. For a CW spinning wheel the back torque wants to turn it CCW. When the 6:00 lever swings up there will be a little of this torque as it hits some part of the wheel.

The yellow weights are much heavier than the reds and their individual positions around the wheel mostly determine which side (left or right) of the wheel has the greater torque. Here it's the right side for a CW spin. The reds staying on this side will also contribute to the net torque. However their contribution is much smaller for they are of low mass. The main purpose of the reds is to keep the wheel perpetually spinning by:

1. Maintaining the weight/torque advantage for the right side.
2. Assisting in knocking the 2:00 lever out to the rim. The earlier the weights assume the outer positions the better (ideally at 12:00). See B.'s comments for MT13.

Without the reds -- the prime mover constituents -- the wheel comes to a full stop due to gravity and friction. As to your (and Tarsier's) energy discussions, I will assume they are intended for OB wheels where weights are always in contact with some parts of the wheel. Do they apply to my concept of flying weights? My answer: Build.

Remember that B.'s pm wheels exhibited movements of various nonrunner designs in MT as he said so himself in its cover paragraph. Like B.'s wheels, mine starts from an imbalanced state and there is a gain of angular momentum (not conserved), which may sustain motion if utilized in some way.

The 6:00 lever is a closed system, meaning it does not matter how hard or fast it swing or hit the wheel, all the torques it creates from centrifugal force and impact cancelled out. The only thing moves out of that system is the red ball and it’s moving right. If the red ball moves right, then something moves left. It pushes on the bottom of the wheel to move right, no?

The heavy yellow ball seems to be the main player. Although the red ball has little torque contribution and GPE, it needs a lot of energy to knock the yellow into position. So the yellow torque doesn’t comes cheap.

[mryy]

Maybe I misunderstood your original post? See upload for clarification. I use an unbalanced, weighted lever which is a wheel in its simplest form. There is torque on both sides that wants to rotate the lever in either direction. We shall call the greater torque on the right side the forward torque as it produces the desired spin direction. The other side is hence the back torque. For a CW spinning wheel the back torque wants to turn it CCW. When the 6:00 lever swings up there will be a little of this torque as it hits some part of the wheel.

The yellow weights are much heavier than the reds and their individual positions around the wheel mostly determine which side (left or right) of the wheel has the greater torque. Here it's the right side for a CW spin. The reds staying on this side will also contribute to the net torque. However their contribution is much smaller for they are of low mass. The main purpose of the reds is to keep the wheel perpetually spinning by:

1. Maintaining the weight/torque advantage for the right side.
2. Assisting in knocking the 2:00 lever out to the rim. The earlier the weights assume the outer positions the better (ideally at 12:00). See B.'s comments for MT13.

Without the reds -- the prime mover constituents -- the wheel comes to a full stop due to gravity and friction. As to your (and Tarsier's) energy discussions, I will assume they are intended for OB wheels where weights are always in contact with some parts of the wheel. Do they apply to my concept of flying weights? My answer: Build.

Remember that B.'s pm wheels exhibited movements of various nonrunner designs in MT as he said so himself in its cover paragraph. Like B.'s wheels, mine starts from an imbalanced state and there is a gain of angular momentum (not conserved), which may sustain motion if utilized in some way.

The 6:00 lever is a closed system, meaning it does not matter how hard or fast it swing or hit the wheel, all the torques it creates from centrifugal force and impact cancelled out. The only thing moves out of that system is the red ball and it’s moving right. If the red ball moves right, then something moves left. It pushes on the bottom of the wheel to move right, no?

Centrifugal force you say? Hmm. I thought it was the rotational force of the lever's untwisted fulcrum spring doing the swinging. According to Newton's third law (which I think is not well-worded and often misunderstood), I think the upswinging lever is moving "right" and the red weight is pushing "left" at it.

The heavy yellow ball seems to be the main player. Although the red ball has little torque contribution and GPE, it needs a lot of energy to knock the yellow into position. So the yellow torque doesn’t comes cheap.

Not really. The 2:00 lever is already in a (near) vertical position thanks to being pulled by the 3:00 lever via a cord. So it shouldn't take much energy for the red weight to tip the lever over. Gravity will also assist in bringing the lever down as the wheel continues to turn.

[WaltzCee]

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ ... ugal-force

here's a calculator if any want to crunch some variables

[Leafy]

It’s hard claim rotation and ignored centrifugal force.

The thing about one lever pulling the other is that you can either have pulling and no impact or impact and no pulling. Can’t have both.

Come on, I thought mryy is the second smartest guy in here. The pros are reading this.

[WaltzCee]

"all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712." - AP pg 295*

c.f.'s a bear once you scale up and start slinging houses around

* thank you Mr Collins. Happy New Year too!

[Leafy]

Btw, Waltz is the smartest guy, he believes in God.

[Leafy]

I think the plan is everyone going to pick sides. No one can stay neutral. There’s no good, bad, right, or wrong choice. It’s just telling the world how you feel. The world leaders are listening, they’ll find a solution that makes you happy.

[Fletcher]

Or, at least; a 'Prime Earth Slow Her Down' entity.

The difference, as I see it, is in the examples given by ChatGPT e.g. throw, jump, spin, and mine - accelerate and brake (decelerate) energy must be first given to the system.

E.g. spin up the flywheel (electrical to mechanical energy) before braking it and transferring momentum to the earth; use muscle energy (gained via photosynthesis and metabolism etc) to throw the object and transfer AM to earth. In each case real mechanical energy must be first put into the system from some real source or downstream transformation of energy into usable form.

In the Prime Mover scenario that isn't necessary imo. The earth has AM and RKE in abundance (scale - virtually unlimited). We don't need to put any energy into the system because it is already merrily revolving and wobbling away. Just extract some rotational energy for mechanical Work, and the earth won't even notice given all else that's contributing to her slowing down over millennia.

Fletcher i have thought about earth to wheel movement before , however all i could ever conjure up was gyroscopic.

Me too jb .. one of the earliest thoughts I ever had, when I first heard about B. [ I think many have had similar thoughts which inevitably turn to things like gyroscopes, precession, and coriolis force etc. All difficult to take further. ]

That was mainly before I had joined this discussion forum and was reasonably "untainted" shall we say lol. n.b. I've investigated my share of gravity-only wheels over the years especially as they are popular around here.

The question has always been "where does the wheels energy come from, to output as mechanical Work (energy) ?

If they were true mechanical PMM's as claimed (I believe B.) then this question must be answered.

And so I came back after a long absence to a revolving earth giving up a part of her RKE/AM as input energy for the wheel to turn into mechanical energy. But this time not to cover old ground like gyro's (which need activation energy) etc and look in other directions for a mechanical solution.

[ blocking ears optional lol ] .. And as we all know gravity is not, and has never been, and never will be, energy !

[WaltzCee]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

We should expect no less.

[Leafy]

If you think the CIA, FBI… not all over perpetual motion, I think that’s naive.

They don’t call intelligence for no reason. A little more or less cryptic about perpetual motion is not a big deal to them.

[ovyyus]

But this time not to cover old ground like gyro's (which need activation energy) etc and look in other directions for a mechanical solution.

I look forward to hearing about other options. However, it does seem curious that Bessler commented that children play with his pm principle in the street. Bessler also included a hand drawn and notated image of a spinning top on his toys page which translates, "Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way."

[Fletcher]

But this time not to cover old ground like gyro's (which need activation energy) etc and look in other directions for a mechanical solution.

I look forward to hearing about other options. However, it does seem curious that Bessler commented that children play with his pm principle in the street. Bessler also included a hand drawn and notated image of a spinning top on his toys page which translates, "Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way."

Exactly Bill .. the Toy's Page (TP) and the children playing in the lane with his superior force (as said by Wagner) are never far from my thoughts. And the premise that the TP contains a separate Prime Mover entity, otherwise the bucolic ball-shifting MT's 44 and 48 could never be made to be runners by a gravity-only weight-shifting method alone.

........

For those concerned about energy consumption of runners etc. The earth does the work of circulating the tides. There are various tidal energy harvesting technologies out there. They constitute a very tiny fraction of renewables which are only about 18% of world energy production. Trillions of runners would not even a come a close second to wave and tidal power currently going to waste as we speak, and if every bit harvested into mechanical energy, imo.

[Leafy]

The smart of us wants friction in the wheel.

The so not smart of us wants to removed the friction.

I want to removes the friction so the wheel can break and stop the heat pollution.